coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and resides in the town of Gorlivka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.
5.  According to the applicant, in 1997 he instituted proceedings in the Tsentralno-Miskyy District Court of Gorlivka against his former employer, the Lenin State Mining Company (шахта ім. Леніна м. Горлівки), claiming compensation for damage to his health. On 6 July 2001 the court awarded the applicant a lump sum of 43,241.61[1] Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) and monthly payments of UAH 834.31[2] (рішення Центрально-міського суду м. Горлівки). This judgment became final on 3 December 2001.
6.  On 23 January 2002 the Tsentralno-Miskyy District Bailiffs’ Service of Gorlivka (відділ Державної виконавчої служби Управління юстиції Центрально-міського району м. Горлівки) initiated the enforcement proceedings.
7.  By letters of 17 April, 14 May, 27 December 2002 and 21 November 2003, the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that it was impossible to sell the debtor’s property because, according to the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, on 26 December 2001 a ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital had been introduced.
8.  On 27 February 2003 the applicant was paid UAH 11,546.43. According to the Government, in 2005 the applicant had been paid UAH 1,475.64 in addition to the aforesaid sum. No document in support of this statement has been submitted.
9.  The applicant disagreed, stating that he had been paid UAH 11,546.43 only.
10.  Both parties agreed that the court judgment remains partly unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Kyiv, Ukraine.
First set of proceedings
5.  In April 1994 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Irpin Town Court (Ірпінський міський суд Київської області) against her former husband seeking to divide their property. The latter lodged a counterclaim. On 18 August 1995 the court divided the property between the applicant and her former husband.
6.  On 6 February 1996 the Kyiv Regional Court (Київський обласний суд)[1] quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.
7.  On 23 December 1997 the Irpin Town Court adopted another judgment on the division of property between the applicant and her former husband. The court further rejected the remainder of principal and counter claims.
8.  On 10 March 1998 the Kyiv Regional Court quashed this judgment and, because of the complexity of the issues involved, took over the case. In its ruling the court stated inter alia that by partially rejecting the principal and counter claims the Irpin Town Court in fact had left unsettled the matter of property right over the house which was a part of the disputed property.
9.  In the course of the aforesaid proceedings a number of forensic examinations have been ordered by the courts. In particular, in their rulings of 22 October 1996 and 22 April 1999 the courts, ordering additional examinations, noted inter alia that “inasmuch as long period of time ha[d] lapsed since the previous forensic examination[s]” they, accordingly, were out-of-date and did not correspond to the actual state of things.
10.  By its letter of 16 July 2001 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal remitted the case back to the first instance court for examination. The court did not provide any reasoning for this remittal except for a general reference to Article 31 of the Judiciary Law, which, at the material time, set forth the competence of a court of appeal.
11.  On 19 February 2002 the Irpin Town Court divided the property between the applicant and her former husband. In particular, the court held that the applicant did not have any property rights regarding the house, in which she lived with her former husband.
12.  On 2 July 2002 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment.
13.  On 20 January 2003 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation.
Second set of proceedings
14.  In April 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Irpin Town Court against her former husband complaining that he had evicted her from the house in which they lived. She also sought to move in the house in question. On 26 June 2003 the court found against the applicant and held that the house in question was owned by the applicant's former husband and a certain M. Moreover, in March 2003 the applicant's former husband had sold his part of the house to D. Therefore, the applicant had no property rights over the house in question and there were no legal grounds to move her in. On 21 October 2003 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. On 29 August 2005 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation.
4.  The applicants were born in 1962, 1966, 1956 and 1954 respectively and live in Pécs.
5.  On 22 September 1993 Mr and Mrs Glöckler brought an action against Mrs and Mr Zoltán Weich and the latter’s brother, Mr László Weich. In the context of a real estate dispute, the plaintiffs sought the invalidation of a donation contract executed between the respondents.
6.  On 7 December 1993 Mr László Weich died. The proceedings were subsequently interrupted. The deceased respondent’s successor, Mr Zoltán Weich, was only identified by the parties in a submission made to the court on 8 September 1995.
7.  After three hearings, on 13 May 1996 the Pécs District Court found for the plaintiffs.
8.  On 5 March 1997 the Baranya County Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court.
9.  In the resumed proceedings, on 14 April 1999 the District Court again found for the plaintiffs, after having held several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert.
10.  On appeal, on 21 September 1999 the Regional Court reversed the first-instance decision and dismissed the plaintiffs’ action.
11.  On 27 March 2001 the Supreme Court quashed this decision and remitted the case to the second-instance court.
12.  In the resumed second-instance proceedings, on 11 September 2001 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 14 April 1999. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court’s review bench on 13 January 2004.
4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Üröm.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  The applicant is a retired truck driver. Between 1982 and 1989 he worked for an Italian company, but as the employee of Hungarocamion, a Hungarian transportation company. The Italian company paid Hungarocamion a certain monthly sum corresponding to the work performed by the applicant. For his part, the applicant received the salary from Hungarocamion stipulated in his employment contract.
7.  Since he allegedly did not receive the whole sum transferred by the Italian company to Hungarocamion, the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the Italian company. The Italian courts partly found for him on 19 March 1997 and, finally at second-instance, on 10 May 2001.
8.  Meanwhile, on 30 April 1993 the applicant brought an action against Hungarocamion before the Budapest Labour Court, alleging that the respondent had not transferred to him all the money which it had received from its Italian partner as his salary.
9.  On 2 February, 31 August and 26 October 1994 the Labour Court held hearings.
10.  Upon the applicant’s request, the Labour Court suspended the proceedings on 10 November 1994 in view of the applicant’s Italian court case. The proceedings only resumed on 7 February 2000 at the applicant’s request.
11.  On 15 February 2000 the Labour Court invited the applicant to submit the certified translation of the documents produced in the Italian proceedings. The applicant complied with this order on 24 May 2000.
12.  On 30 May and 10 October 2001, 9 January, 17 April and 11 September 2002, 28 May and 10 September 2003, the Labour Court held hearings.
13.  On 24 September 2003 the Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s action, finding that the respondent’s salary policy had been in compliance with the law in force at the relevant time. The Labour Court relied on documentary evidence and testimony given by witnesses and the parties.
14.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision on 6 May 2004.
15.  On 4 July 2004 the applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 13 April 2005.
4.  The applicants were born in 1919, 1941, 1947 and 1955, and live in Etes, Bátonyterenye, Salgótarján and Etes, respectively.
5.  In a real estate dispute, on 23 June 1994 Mr S. and others brought an action for a servitude (szolgalom) against the applicants.
6.  After three hearings, the preparation of an expert opinion and the identification of a plaintiff's successor, on 18 June 1998 the Salgótarján District Court found for the plaintiffs. On appeal, on 12 November 1998 the Nógrád County Regional Court quashed this decision.
7.  In the resumed proceedings, on 4 March 1999 the plaintiffs changed their action and claimed ownership. Subsequently, the proceedings were suspended pending the outcome of an underlying land register procedure. The latter ended on 8 January 2001. On 23 April 2001 the plaintiffs' representative requested the resumption of the principal case.
8.  The proceedings resumed on 6 June 2001. After several hearings and the opinion of an expert, on 2 December 2003 the District Court dismissed the action.
9.  On appeal, on 11 May 2004 the Regional Court changed this decision and granted the plaintiffs the servitude they sought.
10.  On 20 September 2004 the applicants requested the re-opening of the case. On 27 April 2005 the Regional Court admitted their request.
11.  In the reopened proceedings, on 8 December 2005 the District Court established that the plaintiffs' adverse possession of the servitude in question had not taken place. It ordered the servitude to be deleted from the land register.
12.  On appeal, on 25 April 2006 the Regional Court changed this decision and upheld its decision of 11 May 2004.
4.  The applicants were born in 1934 and 1937 respectively and live in Budapest.
5.  In 1981 the applicants, as a courtesy, permitted their neighbour to connect his house to the pipeline supplying their house with water. However, in 1992 they wished to terminate the courtesy use of their water system.
6.  In the resultant litigation, which started on 27 March 1992, the Vác District Court dismissed the applicants' action on 4 March 1993. This decision was quashed by the Pest County Regional Court on 11 November 1993.
7.  In the resumed proceedings, the opinion of an expert was obtained on 26 January 1996. On 23 April 1996 the District Court invited the respondent to bring another action with a view to having a servitude registered in his favour. He did so on 8 May 1996. The cases were joined on 10 October 1997.
8.  After several hearings, on 23 February 1999 the District Court dismissed both the applicants' claim to have the neighbour's water connection removed and the latter's claim to establish a servitude. It ordered the neighbour to pay a fee for the use of the applicants' land.
9.  On appeal, on 5 October 2000 the Pest County Regional Court upheld this decision in essence, but modified the amount of the fee payable. On 29 October 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants' petition for review. This decision was served on 25 March 2004.
4.  The applicants were born in 1976, 1973 and 1955 respectively and live in Barnaul, the Altay region.
5.  In 1988 and 1990 the applicants obtained several state bonds entitling them to 4 % annual interest and to recovering of their value at the State Savings Bank at any time. After the applicants' unsuccessful attempts to receive the payment of the bonds, the following civil proceedings were initiated.
6. On 7 October 2002 the Tsentralnyi District Court of Barnaul in the Altay region partly granted Mr Gladyshev's claim against the Government of Russia for pecuniary damages and interests and awarded him 104,690 Russian roubles (RUB).
7. On 27 November 2002 the Altay Regional Court upheld the judgment with minor changes.
8. On the respondent's request to review the judgment due to the wrong assessment of evidence by the courts and the failure to indicate the organisation which was due to transfer the award, a supervisory review was initiated, and, on 10 February 2004 the Presidium of the Altay Regional Court quashed the judgment and dismissed the applicant's claim.
9. On 6 November 2002 the Novoaltayskiy City Court partly granted Mr Mogilnikov's claim against the Government of Russia for pecuniary damages and interests and awarded him RUB 90,788.
10. On 5 February 2003 the Altay Regional Court upheld the judgment.
11. On the respondent's request to review the judgment due to the wrong assessment of evidence and misapplication of the domestic law, a supervisory review was initiated and on 2 December 2003 the Presidium of the Altay Regional Court quashed the judgment and dismissed the applicant's claim.
12. On 21 November 2002 the Novoaltayskiy City Court partly granted Mrs Voronina's claim against the Government of Russia for pecuniary damages and interests and awarded her RUB 98,961.
13. On 15 February 2003 the Altay Regional Court upheld the judgment.
14. On the respondent's request to review the judgment due to the wrong assessment of evidence and misapplication of the domestic law, a supervisory review was initiated and on 21 October 2003 the Presidium of the Altay Regional Court quashed the judgment and dismissed the applicant's claim.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and resides in the village of Blagodatne, Donetsk region, Ukraine.
5.  In April 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Volnovakhskyy District Court against his employer, the Donetskugol State Mining Company (ДП «Донецьквугілля»), for different payments due to him. On 22 June 2004 the court awarded the applicant 38,524.28[1] Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) (рішення Волновахського районного суду).
6.  In September 2004 the Voroshylovskiy District Bailiffs' Service of Donetsk (відділ державної виконавчої служби Ворошиловського районного управління юстиції м. Донецька) initiated enforcement proceedings.
7.  In December 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Voroshylovskyy District Court of the Donetsk Region against the Bailiffs' Service for the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. On 5 April 2005 the court found for the applicant and ordered the Bailiffs' Service to enforce the judgment in question.
8.  Between August 2005 and March 2006 the judgment of 22 June 2004 was enforced in full.
4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Cracow.
1   Civil proceedings for dissolution of co-ownership
5.  On 28 October 1994 a housing co-operative filed with the Cracow District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a claim for dissolution of co-ownership of five plots of land. The applicant is one of the co-owners of the land in question and has his family house there. There were 182 parties to the proceedings at the time when they were first instituted. This number has since increased to 417.
6.  On 16 October 1997 the Cracow Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) decided to join the case in question to a related case involving a claim for the ascertainment of the ownership right to the same land, and to examine them together.
7.  On 1 March 1999 the President of the Cracow District Court appointed an expert in geodesy. On 19 July 1999 the court admitted his expert report as evidence. On 1 July 2002 the President of the Cracow District Court requested that the original report be updated. The additional expert report was furnished in June 2003.
8.  On 20 November and 18 December 2003 respectively the court decided to exclude two judges from dealing with the case. Moreover, on 18 December 2003 the Cracow District Court decided of its own motion to stay the proceedings due to the deaths of several of the parties, the need to ascertain the shares of their legal heirs and to summon new parties.
9.  On 13 April 2006 the Cracow District Court resumed the proceedings since the successors of the deceased parties had been summoned to participate. However, in the same decision the court decided to stay the proceedings due to new circumstances, namely the deaths of other parties.
10.  On 15 December 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint about the unreasonable length of proceedings under the Act of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).
11.  On 14 February 2006 the Cracow Regional Court dismissed the complaint. The court held that the 2004 Act did not have retroactive effect and, consequently it examined the applicant’s claim only in respect of the period between the entry into force of the 2004 Act on 17 September 2004 and the date on which the complaint had been lodged by the applicant. The Cracow Regional Court found that the proceedings remained stayed due to the objective obstacle posed by the deaths of several of the parties and the delays caused by their legal heirs in submitting inheritance titles. The domestic court also emphasised that there was a considerable and ever-changing number of parties to the proceedings.
5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Stavropol.
6.  A private company sued the applicant on a claim of unjust enrichment not related to his salary. It submitted a document showing that the applicant had received money from the company. The applicant counterclaimed that the document had been void.
7.  On 20 June 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Stavropol rejected the applicant’s claim, partly allowed the company’s claim and ordered that the applicant repay 295,176 Russian roubles (RUB) to the company.
8.  By a supplementary judgment of 28 June 2002, the Leninskiy District Court ordered that the applicant pay the court fee of RUB 4,371.77.
9.  On 18 September 2002 the Stavropol Regional Court quashed the judgments and remitted the case.
10.  On 10 October 2002 the Leninskiy District Court allowed the applicant’s claim. It declared the voucher void, confirmed the applicant’s title to the disputed money, ordered that the company pay the applicant RUB 4,916 in legal costs and expenses and ordered that the applicant pay the company RUB 112.
11.  In its grounds of appeal the company complained that the first-instance and appeal courts had erred in the establishment of the facts.
12.  On 27 November 2002 the Stavropol Regional Court reversed the award of RUB 112, rejected the company’s claims in full, and upheld the remainder of the judgment.
13.  On 16 June 2003 the company filed an application for supervisory review of the judgments of 10 October and 27 November 2002. It reiterated its argument that that the first-instance and appeal courts had erred in the establishment of the facts and asked the Presidium of the Stavropol Regional Court to quash their judgments and to remit the case to the first-instance court.
14.  On 28 July 2003 the applicant filed comments on the application for supervisory review. He maintained his claims and asked the Presidium of the Stavropol Regional Court to reject the application.
15.  On 4 August 2003 the Presidium of the Stavropol Regional Court quashed the judgments of 18 September, 10 October and 27 November 2002 because the courts had incorrectly established the facts. It reinstated the judgment of 20 June 2002. Counsel for the applicant was present at the hearing.
16.  On an unspecified date the applicant repaid RUB 295,176 to the company.
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Novosibirsk.
5.  She is entitled to welfare payments for her child (child benefits). In 2000 the applicant brought proceedings against the regional welfare authority, claiming arrears in those payments with indexation.
6.  On 19 July 2000 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Novosibirsk awarded the applicant 1,520.77 Russian roubles (RUB) in arrears. It appears form the parties' submissions that by the same judgment the District Court also awarded the applicant RUB 1,055 on account of indexation. The judgment was not appealed against and entered in force on 30 July 2000. The enforcement proceedings were commenced accordingly.
7.  On 23 August 2002 the applicant received RUB 351.98. On 31 March 2003 the bailiff discontinued the enforcement proceedings referring to the lack of funds at the defendant's disposal.
8.  On 14 January, 8 April, 2 June 2005 and 9 February 2006 the applicant received several payments from the authorities which, taken together with the previous payments, amounted to RUB 1,812.98.
5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Arkhangelsk.
6.  On 23 November 2002 the applicant, a taxi driver, had driven Mr P. and Ms I. to their destination. According to Mr P., an argument broke out between him and the applicant upon arrival at the destination and the applicant injured him with her car. According to the applicant, Mr P. assaulted her and attempted to break the car door and windscreen. She denied that she had injured him and claimed that he had been in good health when she had left.
7.  On 8 August 2003 the Severodvinsk Town Court of Arkhangelsk Region convicted the applicant of reckless driving resulting in an injury and sentenced her to one year's imprisonment conditional on one year's probation. The court based its findings on the version of events presented by Mr P. and rejected statements by witnesses K., Ko. and S., who had supported the applicant's version of events.
8.  On 17 August 2003 the applicant lodged a statement of appeal. She contended, in particular, that the court had not been impartial as it had based its findings only on the contradictory statements of Mr P. and Ms I., and had disregarded her version which was supported by many witnesses' statements.
9.  According to the Government, both the applicant and her lawyer were informed of the appeal hearing. The Government submitted the following documents:
(a)  a copy of the summons of 20 August 2003 which was addressed to the applicant, the victim, counsel for the applicant and for the victim and to the prosecutor;
(b)  an extract from the registry correspondence log, indicating the dispatch of the summons to the applicant's home address;
(c)  an extract from the court delivery log, indicating that the summons had been delivered to the advocates' office of which counsel for the applicant was a member.
10.  The applicant submitted that she had never received the summons. As regards her counsel, the summons had indeed been received by one of his colleagues but not by him personally.
11.  On 9 September 2003 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court examined the case on appeal. The court heard submissions by the judge rapporteur and prosecutor, who asked the court to reject the appeal. Neither the applicant nor her counsel was present at the hearing. The Regional Court upheld the judgment of 8 August 2003.
12.  On an unspecified date the applicant asked the District Court to grant her access to the case file. She submitted that on 11 November 2003 a judge of the District Court had refused the request on the ground that the conviction had become final, but she did not provide any documentary evidence in support of this.